Cameron’s tax avoidance excuses unravel amid revelations about his father – and himself

David Cameron and his mother, Mary: Does she benefit from her late husband's tax avoidance? If so, how much does Cameron himself stand to gain when she passes on? These questions may seem in poor taste but they are important.

David Cameron and his mother, Mary: Does she benefit from her late husband’s tax avoidance? If so, how much does Cameron himself stand to gain when she passes on? These questions may seem in poor taste but they are important.

Remember the moment – can it really have been only yesterday? – when David Cameron said the following:

“I own no shares. I have a salary as prime minister and I have some savings, which I get some interest from and I have a house, which we used to live in, which we now let out while we are living in Downing Street and that’s all I have.”

That was in relation to his father Ian’s tax avoidance company Blairmore, based in Panama. But what about Jersey-based Close International Equity Growth Fund, in which Cameron Sr was a director and of which he held 6,000 shares? Those assets were reportedly left to his family after his death in 2010 – and isn’t David Cameron his son?

David Cameron is facing further questions over his links to offshore investment funds, after it emerged that his late father was involved in a second company based in a tax haven.

Labour accused the Prime Minister of failing to “put the record straight” despite four statements in the space of three days.

Channel 4 News reported that Ian Cameron was a director of Jersey-based Close International Equity Growth Fund and held 6,000 of its shares. His assets were reportedly left to his family following his death in 2010.

Downing Street has said that the Prime Minister, his wife or his children do not stand to benefit from offshore funds or trusts in the future.

The denial is the latest of a series of statements issued by No 10 in the wake of the Panama Papers revelation that David Cameron’s father ran an offshore investment fund called Blairmore Holdings in the Bahamas, which never paid UK tax.

Asked specifically about the Jersey off-shore fund, a spokesman for No 10 said: “On the subject of the PM’s finances, we have nothing to add to the statements already issued.”

(Source: Panama Papers: David Cameron faces questions over father’s off-shore fund in Jersey | UK Politics | News | The Independent )

Furthermore, it seems Mr Cameron (Jr) has been a bit naughty in making sure the names of people who benefit from such organisations can remain hidden:

David Cameron personally intervened in 2013 to weaken an EU drive to reveal the beneficiaries of trusts, creating a possible loophole that other European nations warned could be exploited by tax evaders.

The disclosure of the prime minister’s resistance to opening up trusts to full scrutiny comes as he faces intense pressure to make clear whether his family stands to benefit from offshore assets linked to his late father.

he wrote in November 2013 to Herman Van Rompuy, president of the European Council at the time, to argue that trusts widely used for inheritance planning in Britain should win special treatment in an EU law to tackle money laundering.

In the letter, seen by the Financial Times, Mr Cameron said: “It is clearly important we recognise the important differences between companies and trusts. This means that the solution for addressing the potential misuse of companies, such as central public registries, may well not be appropriate generally.”

(Source: David Cameron’s personal intervention on trusts set up tax loophole | Financial Times )

Note that Cameron personally intervened to ensure that beneficiaries could remain nameless.

Now he’s saying that, even though his father ran two tax avoidance organisations, he isn’t seeing a penny from it – perhaps because he knows it can’t be proved?

In the light of these latest revelations, his position is becoming more precarious by the minute – not just regarding tax avoidance, but as prime minister of the UK.

Oh, and remember Mr Cameron’s wife, Samantha? It was also stated that her assets include only “a small number of shares connected to her father’s land, which she declares on her tax return”.

That’s all very well, but…

What about the fact that she works for a company that is based in a tax haven?

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:



13 thoughts on “Cameron’s tax avoidance excuses unravel amid revelations about his father – and himself

  1. Nick

    David Cameron family will benefit for sure in the future’ his dad was no fool he will benefits on his mothers death ?

    when parents die they hand over what assets they have built up over a lifetime to their children. this is normally done via the family’s lawyer who deals with the tax arrangement’s if any etc

    when David Cameron mother passes away the taxman will be able to tell on what he has inherited as they have the power to look at his bank details as does the DWP
    so he needs to come clean now otherwise he risks getting caught out at a later date

  2. Denis Bell

    Who ‘issues statements from no. 10’ then???!!! WHO… …….And not the World Health Organisation!!

  3. Brian

    Should it be found David Cameron did indeed have prior knowledge of any beneficial off shore holdings, in light of his 2013 EU intervention to water down legislation he has left himself open to criminal prosecution. This would likely be construed as money laundering (if over £6000), malfeasance in public office etc. Should he have also been so ill advised as to have liquidated or transferred any beneficial assets immediately prior to No. 10’s statement (“in the future”) this is even more serious, and may constitute perverting the course of justice.

  4. Neilth

    I thought that the rules state that government ministers have to put their financial matters into some sort of blind trust for the duration, ostensibly so that they can temporarily distance themselves so they can claim to be neutral or unbiased.

    But they still benefit from all investments etc profits made when they finally stand down from office.

    Or did I dream this?

  5. shawn

    ‘in the future’ I’m sure most readers have noted the caveat – ‘in the future. So how much has Cameron and family benefited .from such funds up to the present.

  6. Terry Davies

    the bigger question for Cameron and cronies now some of the offshore shares of his father is surely:
    what is Camerons true reasons for entering politics.
    he may say its a job but in reality its a gravy train from which he cant get off. same for all blue and red tories.
    However his PM position is untenable but he is damaging the tory party none of whom hsve the will to help him until after the May council elections.
    He will now squirm trapped on a hook of deceit as his lies unravel the tory party credibility. hoping this destroys the tory party forever.

  7. David

    I believe all that David Cameron says. Millions wouldn’t, but he wouldn’t lie to us, would he? He must have been taught that honesty’s the best policy whilst at Eton,surely? They do teach that sort of thing there, don’t they? But, whatever, I must go on believing him.

  8. Lynn Dye

    Great article, Mike.

    Interesting that he only mentioned owning one house. Surely he lives in Downing Street rent free, with the added use of Chequers, while he rents out his London house. What about his constituency house in Oxfordshire? Or does that not count because WE are paying for it? (Please correct me if I am wrong.)

    I note that when asked in a 2009 interview, he couldn’t actually remember how many houses he owns.

    What does that tell us?

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      Interesting. I thought he meant his constituency house in Oxfordshire, as the only London house he needs is 10 Downing Street.

      1. Lynn Dye

        Perhaps that is what he wanted folk to believe, Mike.
        He owns a house in Notting Hill according to my google search, and another in Oxfordshire.

Comments are closed.